| Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] > | Does the Blue Board effectively help translators? Thread poster: Anne Pinaglia
|
|---|
Anne Pinaglia
Netherlands
Local time: 18:10
Italian to English
+ ...
TOPIC STARTER | Kate, you assume that all agencies act in good faith | Apr 23, 2014 |
... and translators are the issue. This is not always the case.
| | | | John Fossey 
Canada
Local time: 12:10
Member (2008)
French to English
+ ...
| Choosing clients | Apr 23, 2014 |
Mikhail Kropotov wrote: John Fossey wrote:
While I use the BB I also use paymentpractices.com, which IMO has a much more objective approach - you enter the agreed payment date, the actual payment date and whether the full amount was paid or not, and the site calculates an impartial, objective rating, as well as a subjective WWA rating. There is a lot more to a successful working relationship with a customer than just getting paid on time. I'm not going to go into details because a) we all know what the other factors are and b) they ARE subjective.
Of course that is true. But I don't do business with a client that has a long track record of negative entries on the BB - there has to be a reason for them and I don't want to become one of those statistics, if I can help it.
| | | | Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 17:10
Member (2008)
Italian to English
John Fossey wrote:
......I don't do business with a client that has a long track record of negative entries on the BB - there has to be a reason for them .....
For probably similar reasons, I always think twice about doing business with a client that has a long track record of wholly positive entries on the BB. There's "believable" and there's "too good to be true".
| | | | Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 17:10
Member (2008)
Italian to English
Preston Decker wrote:
......a more objective approach might be one way around this, aka. translators simply write in the date payment was received, and assess an agency's practices in several areas.
That sounds like an interesting possible future development for the BB. FIve extra columns headed something like:
● "Date on which translation was delivered"
● "Was the quality of the translation queried or were any corrections required? Yes/No"
● "Invoice date"
● "Date on which a payment reminder was issued" (this might require several columns to allow for the possibility that multiple reminders had to be issued)
● "Date on which payment in full was received"
These would just provide factual information. Nobody could possibly raise any objection.
[Edited at 2014-04-23 12:20 GMT]
| | |
|
|
|
Diana Obermeyer
United Kingdom
Local time: 17:10
Member (2013)
German to English
+ ...
| Love this idea! | Apr 23, 2014 |
Tom in London wrote: Preston Decker wrote:
......a more objective approach might be one way around this, aka. translators simply write in the date payment was received, and assess an agency's practices in several areas. That sounds like an interesting possible future development for the BB. Three extra columns headed something like: "Date on which translation was delivered" "Date on which a reminder was issued" (this could be several columns) "Date on which payment in full was received" [Edited at 2014-04-23 12:03 GMT]
I absolutely love that idea.
Not only does it clearly show up the late payers, but it further differentiates between acceptable and crazy payment terms (Let's be honest here - if a client offers 90 days payment terms, on-time payment just isn't good enough. I'd rather not spend time on communication and know this in advance!); those that only just fulfill payment terms (arranging payment on the due date, which will arrive 3 days later...) and those that go the extra mile.
I have a couple of clients that always pay within a week, sometimes literally within hours of delivery. Naturally, I will equally give them priority treatment. That's not just a rational consideration. On those rare sunny days it quite frequently makes the difference between accepting an urgent assignment and taking an afternoon off
| | | | | Maybe it's just not reported | Apr 23, 2014 |
Tom in London wrote:
...... I always think twice about doing business with a client that has a long track record of wholly positive entries on the BB. There's "believable" and there's "too good to be true".
Some of my very best clients have had minor slip-ups over the years.
Small agencies with only a few dedicated staff and many irons in the fire...
The difference is that when you send a reminder, the bank transfer is made instantly, and the sincerely apologetic answer to your mail arrives the next moment.
I would not dream of reporting that kind of exception on a blunt tool like the Blue Board. I would never name names either. The fact remains that we're all human, and the most human and best in many ways are still not infallible. They keep their 5-rating as far as I am concerned, and I really am delighted to work for them again.
You have a point, however. We should beware of those who claim to be infallible, and perhaps even believe it themselves!
| | | | | Great minds (!) | Apr 23, 2014 |
Tom in London wrote: Preston Decker wrote:
......a more objective approach might be one way around this, aka. translators simply write in the date payment was received, and assess an agency's practices in several areas. That sounds like an interesting possible future development for the BB. ● "Invoice date" ● "Date on which payment in full was received" These would just provide factual information. Nobody could possibly raise any objection.
Preston's post gave me a similar idea to yours and I was going to post. I would suggest a simpler version has all the actual hard facts required. If the second column is blank, payment still awaited. Not sure we need to know your other columns to make our judgements about a possible client..... but I could be wrong. I would anticipate that the less info people have to provide, the higher the take up might be (and perhaps the greater the albeit slim chances of a change to the site...!)
| | | | Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 17:10
Member (2008)
Italian to English
Charlie Bavington wrote:
I would suggest a simpler version .....
Charlie- you're right. I agree. Simpler is better. And I can't see how making these changes would create any major issues for the good people who run Proz. Let's have them soon !
| | |
|
|
|
Kay Denney
France
Local time: 18:10
French to English
| it's not about minor slip-ups | Apr 23, 2014 |
Christine Andersen wrote:
Some of my very best clients have had minor slip-ups over the years.
I don't think we're talking about minor slip-ups and if they were to be reported it would probably reflect worse on the translator reporting (= this person has way too much time on their hands!).
If you're completely fed up with an agency, filling in the mini questionnaire Tom suggests could serve first as a litmus test for yourself (is it really as bad as I think or am I over-reacting just because I can't stand the PM's grating voice or wish I hadn't taken the job because it turned out to be harder than I though?) and then if you see that yes, indeed these people are awful, on to the BB it goes.
| | | | Sheila Wilson
Spain
Local time: 17:10
Member (2007)
English
+ ...
| I think it would be a shame to see the BB just used for (non-)payment | Apr 23, 2014 |
I know there are real failings with the Blue Board, and I'm very worried by these claims that coercion is going unpunished and I really don't want to see that allowed to continue. It's far too easy for an unscrupulous agency to manipulate young, inexperienced or simply naive freelancers. It would be nice to know that the system is completely fair to both outsourcer and freelancer, but if that's impossible then the scales should tip in favour of the translator. Apart from their vulnerability, it'... See more I know there are real failings with the Blue Board, and I'm very worried by these claims that coercion is going unpunished and I really don't want to see that allowed to continue. It's far too easy for an unscrupulous agency to manipulate young, inexperienced or simply naive freelancers. It would be nice to know that the system is completely fair to both outsourcer and freelancer, but if that's impossible then the scales should tip in favour of the translator. Apart from their vulnerability, it's the translators generally speaking who pay their dues to the site, after all!
But I don't want to see it reduced to simply "did they pay on time, or not?". I would hate to work for agencies who pay on time yet have other practices that clearly show they are not interested in a professional B2B relationship. Sometimes, they are trying to act like employers who pay the employee's salary in a timely manner: well, if I'm to be an employee then I'll take the paid holidays, paid sick leave and everything else that goes with the job, thanks (not that I'd ever go there).
I rarely rate a company promptly after their first payment, so I really wouldn't have to hand either an invoice date or a payment date. Actually, I tend to do most of my postings as a result of a "call for entries". If I know there's someone out there looking for my comments, then I'm happy to give them; I don't do it for the outsourcer, nor for myself.
Personally, I'd like to see the same sort of review system as you get on places like TripAdvisor. There (and in many other places on the web), you get to give an overall satisfaction rating out of 5; plus some text space; plus optionally you can rate specific categories, which in our case would probably be along the lines of
- communication (were they friendly, available and approachable),
- administration (did they make me jump through hoops to register, use a time-wasting interface for work/invoicing... or was everything simple and clear),
- support (did they provide a communications link to the end client when necessary, DTP support, clear instructions, and so on),
- trustworthiness (did they keep to their side of the bargain in terms of volumes, work to be done and deadline; payment amount, date and method...)
Note that I haven't suggested including a category for payment terms as such, as I don't think that's workable - if a translator agrees to work for two peanuts, to be paid next year, how can they blame the client? OTOH, if the client only pays one single peanut and/or the year after next, that would be grounds for a low "trustworthiness" rating.
In addition, I would very much like to see the "no quality complaints outstanding" proviso removed. The outsourcer has the right of reply; they are free to use it if they feel it necessary to admit that they hired the wrong person for their job. Their recruitment error shouldn't serve as a muzzle for translators to be cheated out of their right to free speech - the courts are there to decide if they deserve to be paid. ▲ Collapse
| | | | Giles Watson
Italy
Local time: 18:10
Italian to English
In memoriam
Charlie Bavington wrote:
If the second column is blank, payment still awaited.
... the translator has forgotten to update the post and a good payer has been misrepresented.
| | | | Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 17:10
Member (2008)
Italian to English
Giles Watson wrote: Charlie Bavington wrote:
If the second column is blank, payment still awaited.
... the translator has forgotten to update the post and a good payer has been misrepresented.
That could easily be solved by automatically emailing the person concerned - as happens with these discussion forums.
I do agree that the BB shouldn't only be about who pays/doesn't pay, but knowing who pays/doesn't pay is certainly one key element of the feedback. And there's already a facility on BB for making more general comments.
| | |
|
|
|
Giles Watson
Italy
Local time: 18:10
Italian to English
In memoriam | Who would be sending this "automatic" email? | Apr 23, 2014 |
Tom in London wrote:
That could easily be solved by automatically emailing the person concerned - as happens with these discussion forums.
Who would send the email? The translator has forgotten, the customer can't be expected to and Proz has no way of checking (I sincerely hope).
| | | | Tom in London
United Kingdom
Local time: 17:10
Member (2008)
Italian to English
Giles Watson wrote: Tom in London wrote:
That could easily be solved by automatically emailing the person concerned - as happens with these discussion forums.
Who would send the email? The translator has forgotten, the customer can't be expected to and Proz has no way of checking (I sincerely hope).
Nobody. Who sent this one? The computer does it.
| | | | Giles Watson
Italy
Local time: 18:10
Italian to English
In memoriam
Tom in London wrote:
Nobody. Who sent this one? The computer does it.
Presumably you mean some sort of mechanism like the points-awarding nudges for Kudoz. But these don't always work, for example when the asker is only an occasional user of the service.
Leaving incorrect information about poor business practices on a publicly accessible site could be interpreted as defamation, something Proz is quite rightly keen to avoid.
[Edited at 2014-04-23 16:49 GMT]
| | | | | Pages in topic: < [1 2 3] > | To report site rules violations or get help, contact a site moderator: You can also contact site staff by submitting a support request » Does the Blue Board effectively help translators? | Anycount & Translation Office 3000 | Translation Office 3000
Translation Office 3000 is an advanced accounting tool for freelance translators and small agencies. TO3000 easily and seamlessly integrates with the business life of professional freelance translators.
More info » |
| | Trados Studio 2022 Freelance | The leading translation software used by over 270,000 translators.
Designed with your feedback in mind, Trados Studio 2022 delivers an unrivalled, powerful desktop
and cloud solution, empowering you to work in the most efficient and cost-effective way.
More info » |
|
| | | | X Sign in to your ProZ.com account... | | | | | |
Login to reply/comment 
Translation news
